Share this

In a move that could win him support from Republicans but rile his base, President Barack Obama plans to propose oil drilling in waters from Delaware to Florida, in the Gulf of Mexico and in parts of Alaska, administration officials said.

Will this help the Obama Administration push through its climate change plan? Is this in line with then-candidate Obama's campaign trail promises on environmental protection?

President Obama’s decision to allow new drilling is notable more for its political significance than for its substantive impact.

The potential impact on oil prices and volumes of opening more of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has been exhaustively studied. The bottom line: Consumers aren’t going to notice any real impact.

The broader economic impacts are potentially more significant, perhaps on the order of $100 billion to $1 trillion (assuming $25-$50 gain per barrel and 5-20 billion barrels). That revenue would be split between oil companies and the government over several decades; depending on the details, that could be a significant benefit for Americans.

There are also direct climate change downsides, which I estimate as being worth between zero (if OPEC contracts production in response) and a couple hundred billion dollars (if total global production goes up by 5 billion barrels, and carbon causes damages at $50/ton).

These are all serious numbers, but still quite small in the context of the whole economy. Rather than going for direct economic or security impact, the President seems to be betting that this move will build confidence among moderates and industry as Congress gears up for a fight over comprehensive energy and climate legislation. His speech this morning focused almost entirely on clean energy. But confidence building is tough slogging in Washington these days.

The fascinating question of this presidency is whether Obama can successfully chart a middle course when partisans on both sides view the middle-ground as enemy territory. Can an administration more interested in good governance and solving problems than scoring political points survive? The left will tend to give him more slack on this issue because he's a Democrat, the same way Nixon was able to open ties with China because he was a Republican. But if Obama expects this will convince Republicans to support broad environmental legislation that seeks to solve both our short term and long term problems, the comments on today's announcement offer strong testimony that the party of "Hell No You Can't!" won't be globally warming to compromise any time soon.

If President Obama makes sensible proposals about expanding drilling and combines them with an aggressive plan to expand nuclear power supply and to encourage the development of refinery capacity, he will buy some flexibility on environmental policy from environmental moderates and skeptics. Still, I don't see any real possibility of getting significant anti-growth environmental taxes passed as part of that bargain. In other words, only a plan that leans heavily on drilling in the short run, and medium-run expansion of nuclear power supply and refinery capacity, combined with substantially delayed and muted actions to slow the growth in energy demand, could win politically. I doubt that he will pursue it, but I hope that he does.

“This plan continues our reliance on dirty fossil fuels – we cannot simply drill our way to energy security. Americans are demanding a clean energy future that goes beyond drilling and incentivizes the technologies that are critical to building a 21st-century clean energy economy. What we need now is presidential leadership that drives comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that caps harmful carbon pollution, puts America back to work, ends our reliance on foreign oil and keeps us safe.”

President Obama's decision to open parts of our coast to oil drilling is his Sister Souljah moment with Mother Earth. Despite the campaign pledges, some ecosystems will have to be sacrificed to preserve others. The national security and environmental sustainability imperatives are clear but this strategy is murky. While I appreciate the president's "all of the above" energy policy needed to reach a hand across the aisle to Republicans to make progress, I'm concerned that he'll receive an open hand and we lose pristine wilderness or a clenched fist and we get only drilling without renew-ables.

There's an interesting political contrast here. Enviros in these coastal states, many of which supported Obama in the primary and general elections, may feel abused by this decision.

Meanwhile, in the mountains of West Virginia, Virginia and Kentucky - where the Obama campaign was whipped by both Hillary Clinton and John McCain - the president is showing some environmental toughness. (In the Democratic presidential primary, Clinton wiped out Obama in these mountain counties. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a "proposed determination" that would block a permit for the largest mountaintop removal (MTR) mine in West Virginia history. In MTR mining, the tops of mountains are stripped off and the overburden is shoved into the valleys below. Opponents of MTR have come to blows with miners, ripping apart coalfield communities. Republican candidates in Eastern coalfield states regularly say (and advertise) that the Obama Administration is waging a "war on coal."

But this is where the administration is making a stand (or appears ready to do so).

Obama made the first part of this – pivot to the middle – in his SOTU address and it is a smart move. This sends a signal to the middle of the political spectrum that the president is not an ideologue on climate change. His base has nowhere else to go and will be with him regardless.

The drilling announcement is a ploy to throw a bone to Republicans while masking the true intent of Democrats to embark on a massive global warming/cap and tax bill. The president is willing to throw Congress under the bus to preserve his presidency and advance his agenda. If Democrats follow like sheep on a massive energy bill like they did on health care then they will surely be led to slaughter in November.

I fully support President Obama not adding any legal impediments to offshore oil drilling. He is not doing anything but that, since President Bush and a Democratic Congress already lifted the ban in 2008. The 50-mile restriction is the only news of today, and that is in fact, a change that restricts exploration. But by this measure, President Obama should not expect conservatives to swallow cap and trade, or other jobs-killing, economy-killing measures that do nothing to help the environment. Conservatives are pretty stubborn about protecting American jobs and economic growth.

I think you have to consider the economy. Oil-drilling, if carried out responsibly, like expanding natural gas production, is the quickest way to lessen dependence on foreign energy. If combined with aggressive expansion of renew-ables over time, it is a huge economic plus for the whole country.

And particularly those states that can use the revenues - which today is almost every state.

This could be one sign – support for nuclear power is another – that the president is listening more to economic advisor than the radical greens. After all, a strong economy guarantees Obama’s re-election. The greens have nowhere to go. Hopefully the White House realizes that an Rove-style battle of the bases is not the way to win, or govern successfully.

While the instinct for self-preservation among Blue Dog and conservative Democratic members of Congress is understandable, for them to sit on their hands for the remainder of this session is not in the best interests of the nation, the Democratic Party, or themselves.

Recent polling has shown an improvement in perceptions of the President Barack Obama, the national Democratic Party, and congressional Democrats. For example, the most recent Daily Kos weekly tracking survey, posted three days after the president signed health care reform legislation into law, pointed to a net 5-point improvement in Obama’s favorability score. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, congressional Democrats, and the Democratic Party each registered net gains of 3 points. By contrast, the favorability of the GOP, especially John Boehner (-5 points) and congressional Republicans (-7 points), declined. The lion’s share of these Democratic favorability and vote intention improvements came from Democratic identifiers within the electorate. In particular Speaker Pelosi (+8 points) and congressional Democrats (+5 points) benefited from improved perceptions of Democratic voters.

All of this produced a 3-point Democratic net gain on the survey’s generic 2010 congressional ballot. Most important, the likelihood of Democrats voting in November increased a whopping 10-points in a week (from 45% to 55%).

Congressional Democrats, even of the Blue Dog and conservative variety in closely contested and Southern districts, cannot successfully compete for reelection without first rallying their fellow Democrats. As events of the past week have demonstrated, only action rather than inaction will do that.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it best: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” Given the immensity and persistence of the problems we face as a nation with regards to unemployment, housing, poverty, the environment, and overall Wall Street malfeasance, the Obama Administration can not afford to sit on its hands and congratulate itself on getting health care reform through. It should push ahead regardless of the short term political consequences. That would be “change” we really could believe in.

Political capital is like ice: the longer you sit on it, the faster it goes away. But you've got to spend it wisely. So Obama is smart to move forward aggressively, but selectively.

Immigration reform is not likely to happen anytime soon. It's too controversial and Obama knows better than to try to take on another bruising fight so quickly. Better to give his fellow Democrats some much-needed cover by taking on Wall Street and an easier lift on education reform. By daring Republicans to defend the bankers and by enticing them with school fixes that the teachers' unions hate, Obama increases the prospect for at least some bipartisan support moving forward. Health care may not have been a huge political win for the president, but it gave him a larger stack of chips to bet on a couple of safer hands.

On health care, Obama would do well to follow the advice traveling salesmen learn early in their careers. Having made the sale (but not, as yet to the public), he should move on to the next house (issue). But to what? Cap and trade is as dead as Marley's ghost. Only House Democrats on a mission of political suicide will take that up again after their Senate colleagues stiffed them after they already took one hard vote for the president. The offshore drilling announcement may actually be more about policy than politics. (Cynics, get out your smelling salt.) Financial reform may bode better with the public and with Republicans than any of the other items in Obama's medicine chest. (As they did with health care, people are already asking what the president really wants.)

But what about the one thing that can bode well for Obama's short as well as long-term prospects: economic growth and job creation? One would be hard pressed to find another administration in history to shown itself as allergic to remedies that actually might do the country some good and attract bipartisan support as has this one. For Obama to make a real difference here, he would need to cut rather than increase regulations and taxes. That, of course, would entail putting much of his "pie in the sky" agenda on hold until such time, at least, when the economy will have grown sufficiently for him to pay for it. Barring passage of a bill that retains the Bush tax cuts for some Americans, taxes are scheduled to go up for all but the very needy next year. Factor in all those taxes and fees Obama imposed when he signed the health care measure into law and you have the recipe for prolonged economic gridlock. Yet the president and his team prefer not to see.

Keeping with the Dickensian theme of the morning, they seem to believe, as did Uriah Heep, that "something will turn up" by 2012 to lower unemployment sufficiently as to carry Obama past the finish line. How strange that they take a "laissez-faire" attitude toward the one thing that might actually do them and the country some good. History records that some of out best presidents (the "transformative" ones in Obama-speak) were those able to change course in the face of changed facts. Lincoln changed strategy, tactics, and personnel often. FDR changed direction so fast as to make his advisers dizzy, Reagan lowered the rhetoric when convinced that he actually could do business with Gorby. Obama, like Wilson and LBJ, press on whatever the circumstances. And we know how those administrations ended.

Each of the high-priority issues on the president’s agenda has its own politics. It’s foolish to imagine that his victory on health care will generate momentum that sweeps uniformly across all of them. On the other hand, a defeat on health care would have made for a much heavier lift on every one.

The administration is wise to move forward aggressively on financial regulation. It is in a strong position to beat back a potential Republican filibuster and has at least a small number of Republican senators who would prefer legislating to blocking. A reauthorization/revision of K-12 education programs also has reasonably bright projects, especially in light of favorable reactions to the Race to the Top initiative. The overwhelmingly negative public reaction to the Citizens United decision provides the president a good opportunity to persuade Congress to pass new disclosure and transparency requirements on corporate independent political spending. Finally, there remains a number of initiatives on the jobs front that the administration will happily pursue in the months ahead. If the Republicans choose to filibuster any of these issues, they will likely pay a political price for doing so.

Prospects for movement on Immigration and energy/climate change, on the other hand, are less bright. Improving economic conditions will help over time but support beyond a single Republican senator will be required to achieve any measure of progress.

This is no time for the administration to rest on its laurels. The public will respond well to active, optimistic and successful leadership. There remains much to be done before the November elections.

This is not a promising time for major legislative initiatives. Even in ordinary times, members of Congress tend toward risk aversion; voter dissatisfaction with the economy and a looming election have only aggravated that tendency. And of course, the Republicans have 41 votes now with which to filibuster in the Senate. The president should use the next several months to lay the groundwork for his next window of legislative opportunity. He needs to identify his top priorities and work quietly with congressional leadership to prepare bill drafts that can be moved quickly once the political environment becomes more favorable (i.e., once the economy recovery kicks in).

But that doesn't mean the president should remain idle. There are ample opportunities to use the administrative agency rule-making process to make progress. Just as the EPA is using its existing authority to regulate greenhouse gases, so should it and other agencies move forward with other important reforms. Although the rule-making process has its limits, it allows the administration to implement purer, more effective changes than the watered down products that emerge from the legislative process. In particular, the administration should move quickly to implement the pilot programs for cost-containment in the health care legislation (e.g., the provisions that encourage doctors and hospitals to organize into high quality, low cost institutions). By doing so, the president can both address a critical societal need and rally public support for the legislation.

Cameron LynchRepublican Strategist and President The Lynch Group, LLC :

President Obama's emboldened posture suggests that he may be more of a problem gambler than a casual slot machine winner.

He asked several Blue Dog House Democrats to take the vote of their life on health care, and many of them did; likely knowing it would cost them their jobs in November. Force-feeding Congress additional issues that don't enjoy momentum or political support (climate change and immigration) is not only bad politics, it's frankly disrespectful to those members who swallowed hard and voted with him on health care. Financial regulation appears to be the best vehicle for some bipartisan action, mainly because association with Wall Street - by members of either party - is now perceived as politically toxic.

I've never been a fan of bad policy for purely political gain. As a Republican, however, I welcome the president's further push for controversial domestic issues. Not only are they highly unlikely to pass Congress, but they will provide further ammunition for Republican candidates come November.

The Democrats right now are living with the consequences of passing two big bills that haven't paid off politically: health care and the stimulus. Passing more bills like that (cap and trade, immigration) will ensure a world-class whuppin' come November. That prospect doesn't affect all Democrats in the same way. Blue Dogs and others whose seats will be lost in an electoral meltdown look at it one way. Democrats from ultra-safe seats -- and the White House -- can afford more long term calculations. Why not use the party's rare majorities in both houses plus control of the presidency to get some big historic reforms across? If you don't do these things now, when will you do them?

And the White House can rationally hope that by 2012 when the economy is presumably stronger, and the opposition to some of the bills has died down, the president can run for re-election on a record of historic accomplishments.

There's another factor at work. Many House Democrats have already bitten the bullet on cap-and-trade. Any version that comes out of the Senate is likely to be much more popular than the House bill; the chance to get another bite at the apple and either vote no on cap and trade or vote yes for something less toxic than the House version might well attract some waverers.

It's interesting that the one thing nobody is talking about is passing a string of wildly popular Democratic initiatives that the whole country wants. With the exception of the financial regulation bill, everything on the Democratic wish list is spinach: stuff the party knows the voters won't like, but thinks they should eat anyway because it's good for them. It's almost never good to be the spinach party.

Here is the likely scenario. Pile up as many scalps on the wall before the mid-term elections and then watch the party get crushed by an angry electorate...but that's okay the base will be mobilized and hungry for revenge in 2012 and most of the "agenda" will be done anyway. Then batten down the hatches and hope the economy and jobs improve and Afghanistan does not become a quagmire.

Obama has to be careful. President Carter notoriously asked for too much in his first year, pressuring Democrats to take controversial stands that harmed them in the 1978 midterm elections. If he starts tackling too many issues outside of the economy, he can face a backlash from legislators in his own party.

The more the merrier when it comes to passing critical legislation. The president and the Democrats in Congress have the wind at their backs now and it is smart policy and smart politics to get as much done on financial regulation, jobs, energy and the environment, and education in the coming months. The fastest path to winning seats in November is to show real movement, real change in the weeks and months ahead. This is the time to keep the foot on the gas, not on the break, and certainly not putting the car in neutral.

Obama and the Democrats have not "maxed out" -- that is too simplistic, even if all of the media want to run with it. But they do need to select and focus and control the agenda going into November. They need to push forward to votes on Wall Street regulation even if Republicans vote NO.

Beyond that, they should focus on jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs -- push forward strong proposals, one after another, even if Republicans vote no.

The country badly needs jobs. Tens of millions of people are out of work because the economy had been incompetently managed by Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke. President Obama would be well-advised to light a fire under Congress, continually pushing for measures that will put people back to work. There is absolutely no doubt that we know how to employ people -- Keynes taught us everything we need to know on this issue more than 70 years ago. The only question is whether the politicians in Washington will have the courage to do the right thing and give workers jobs.

The president must pick and choose his battles but should move forward.

The country elected a leader and expects him to lead. He already has his enemies from the previous legislation. Moving forward will continue to enrage those against him, but moving forward will continue to energize his base which will clearly help him and the Democratic Party in November.

If Congress does nothing for the next eight months than health reform will be the central issue of the2010 election. If Democrats are able to tackle education, environment, arms agreements, and a whole slew of issues, plus appoint a new Supreme Court justice. It will be seen as a Congress of accomplishment. Yes, it will turn off many but I believe it will bring back the base and many independents.

What's good for Obama and what's good for Congress may not be the same. Obama will want to press other major parts of his agenda while he still has large majorities in Congress. Congress, on the other hand, needs to focus on job creation legislation to help minimize losses this fall.

Financial regulation and legislation to deal with climate change (and immigration and labor reform) are essential priorities for the country. Whether or not to push ahead should not be a question of politics, but of governance and responsibility. We need courage here, not political calculation.

Political momentum is completely in the eye of the beholder, until and unless something is passed (see health reform) or someone wins (see any presidential primary, any year), after which the media gets to write yet another story declaring political momentum has been established as thus and so. That is, until the next vote, the next primary, the next election. It keeps political reporters busy. The public moves a good deal slower than that, even for those who actually pay attention. But the public still wants Washington to act on problems, not run and hide under the desk. Financial regulation is coming, and jobs and the economy have to be front and center. We’ll see about the rest, but the accomplishments this first term will be significant.

The president has a good shot at passing financial regulation because Wall Street banks are unpopular and the public still remembers the devastation of the last two years. It will be difficult to move other big bills (cap-and-trade and immigration) before the election. But Democrats could peel off some of the more popular provisions of those bills and get them enacted as a down payment on future legislation. That will keep the momentum alive for larger bills that require more time to pass.

One thing the president shouldn't do is take advice from Republicans who advice the White House to go slow, not to push Congress to pass financial, immigration, or energy legislation, and who argue that Congress is "just too fatigued after health care" to do anything else except run for reelection between now and November. That sounds like a lot of wild talk from a party in the minority. I mean, I'd be giving that advice too if my party had just suffered a major once-in-a-generation legislative defeat and was administered by a national committee that keeps going on and off the rails. As if Republicans have Democrats' best interests at heart.

What Republicans in Congress now appear to fear is having to take a few tough votes. And with their majorities still in place, Democrats should force Republicans to take those tough votes and then defend them in November on 1) financial regulation and 2) immigration. Democrats should bring financial reform and job creation legislation to the floor and force Republicans to vote against regulation that curtails the actions of Wall Street bankers and government-catalyzing job creation. That will put the party against popular opinion, especially among Tea Party activists (financial regulation) and Reagan Democrats (job creation) and then Republicans can defend that vote in November. And: Democrats should force Republicans to vote, as they will, against immigration reform and then, in a country where the demographics are shifting against the Jeff Davis wing of the Republican Party, have to defend their anti-immigration vote in November, as well. Putting Republicans in Congress on the record on these two issues is both good policy and good politics and could have the effect of helping with preserving Democratic majorities in the fall.

When it is behind late in the game, a football team doesn't sit on the ball and try to run out the clock. You throw some passes and try to get down-field and score as quickly and as often as you can.

Political observers like Charlie Cook believe Democrats are in danger of losing control of the House in November. The reason Democrats are in such a tenuous position is voters are unhappy with the status quo and want change.

So if Democrats want to maintain control of the House, they need to change as many things as they can in the next few months. The most important thing Democrats have to change before election day is the economy.

On today's date in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt created the Civilian Conservation Corps, which created jobs for millions of unemployed Americans. Democratic fortunes in November ride on the unemployment rate, so Democrats need to pass legislation that would create new jobs now to rebuild the nation's outmoded and corroded infrastructure.

Force the GOP to play defense and oppose the creation of new jobs for the millions of Americans who are desperately looking for work. New jobs create new taxpayers who will pay down the federal budget deficit that George W. Bush raised to new heights during his administration.

The fewer unemployed Americans there are in November, the more employed Democratic congressional incumbents there will be in January.

I believe that after the dust settles for Democrats after the health care marathon that by and large they are legislatively fatigued. The president may still be savoring the victory but House and Senate members up for re-election are worried and focused on November. I do not think it is wise for the president to be thinking about an aggressive “spring offensive” when many vulnerable members are still licking their wounds over health care. The president and the leadership of the House and Senate should proceed with great caution legislatively. Taking on equally divisive issues now, will not be easy and will only come at a greater price for Democrats in the midterms.

POLITICO reports Wednesday that President Obama's attempt to capitalize on his health care victory is facing resistance from Democratic lawmakers weary of taking more tough votes before Election Day. Can the Obama Administration push through victories on cap-and-trade legislation, financial regulation and other top agenda items? Or would the White House be wise to pocket the health care win and keep Congress as quiet as possible for the next seven months?

The president’s push to turn health care reform into a catalyst for the rest of his agenda is getting mixed early reviews on Capitol Hill, where Democratic leaders' desire to take advantage of healthy majorities before the November elections is running face-first into lawmakers’ survival instincts.

White House aides told POLITICO earlier this week that an emboldened Barack Obama plans to parlay his win on health care into a crack down on Wall Street excesses, a rewrite of education and campaign finance laws and possibly a climate change bill — all before the fall's midterms.

But aides and members, Republicans and Democrats alike, say that a Wall Street crackdown was coming — and progress on climate change, immigration and other contentious measures probably wasn't — no matter what had happened with the health care bill.

“I don’t see it creating momentum,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has negotiated across party lines on several significant issues in his first term.

The difference Corker detects on regulating Wall Street is not that the bill’s moving – that, he says, was inevitable – but that Obama is working to ensure it appeals to liberals.

“There may be more pressure from the administration than there was to keep it on the left,” Corker said. But other than that, he said, “I don’t think [health care] is going to affect other agenda items.”

Democrats on Capitol Hill differ as to whether – but mostly to what degree – putting health care reform on the scoreboard has given Obama more juice in Congress.

They uniformly say that swatting Wall Street is a political no-brainer that unifies their party and splits Republicans, and many of them are eager to pass anything that can be labeled a “jobs” bill to show voters that they are focused on reversing economic misfortune. Both offer the opportunity to cater to populist sentiment before the election — and to force the GOP to go along or risk public backlash.

“As we go forward, we will see if the Republicans are willing to reform Wall Street,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last week. “Bipartisanship is nice but it cannot be a substitute for action. Not having it cannot prevent us from going forward. So, if they don’t want to regulate Wall Street, we do. And we will.”

But that’s the relatively easy part.

As Democrats approach what is expected to be a tough mid-term election, two cross-cutting dynamics are taking hold: Lawmakers who must battle to win re-election are even less inclined to cast tough votes, while some Democratic strategists believe the best bet for party leaders is to use big congressional majorities to enact their agenda before anticipated November losses set them back.

“The only thing we know for certain is we have the majority until the beginning of November 2010,” said one House Democratic aide. “Especially this year with how the political climate is – I don’t think we’ll lose the House, but there seems to be a sense of trying to get as much done when we can.”

Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, said that approach makes sense.

“If you’re going to use unified political party advantage … now is the time,” she said.

But as party leaders plot the course for the rest of the year, some fatigued Democrats in tough re-election races may yell “uncle” at the first sight of another controversial bill.

“If [Obama’s] saying he’s got the stride going and he’s on a winning streak and that was just the first of many things he thinks he can get through, I would actually say the opposite,” said the top aide to a member of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition. “That ship has sailed. That capital was expended on cap and trade first and health care second.”

The political ether is full of potentially poisonous issues for Democrats, including an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws and legislation aimed at addressing climate change.

Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have been working on an immigration bill, but Graham has been critical of Obama for not providing the muscle to back up declarations of support for an overhaul.

“At the end of the day, the president needs to step it up a little bit,” Graham told POLITICO earlier this month. “One line in the State of the Union is not going to do it.”

Obama said he would tackle immigration in 2010, but his win on the health care bill doesn't appear to have done much to break the impasse.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs suggested on Tuesday that the GOP has to put more skin in the game before Obama will commit to moving forward.

“I think the president has been a strong advocate and proponent of immigration reform, understanding, again, this is -- I get asked all the time about bipartisanship, about, well, you can’t just -- you guys can’t just go this alone, right? Well, this is not an issue that’s going to be decided by just getting all the Democratic members to support immigration reform,” Gibbs said at a White House press briefing. “There has to be -- there have to be Republicans that come aboard, too.”

A senior Senate Democratic aide told POLITICO this week that, when it comes to the legislative agenda between now and November, immigration and "a large energy push" are "the only two things that remain questions."

The aide said financial regulatory reform, a ban on corporate campaign spending and a series of jobs bills would be the meat of the party’s agenda for the rest of the year.

But as polls on the health care law bounce around – the latest from USA/Today Gallup had 50 percent responding that it was a bad development – some Democrats say clearing the decks has given them an opportunity to deliver on other items.

Senior Democratic aides in the House say there may be movement toward energy legislation, whether it's a comprehensive stab at addressing climate change or something significantly smaller.

“There’s still an opportunity to get a bunch of really big things done,” said one senior House Democratic aide.

Justin Oldham (guest)
AK:

Every issue has its own politics. I said back back in '08 when Candidate Obama was against offshore drilling that he'd have to flip on that one. And, he has. Today's political situation is such that he literally could do nothing else if he wants a second term. He's got to make nice with the conservative wing of his party, and he knows it. Democrats have to do this, if they want their ship to stay afloat.
Republicans need to spin this as a win. They need to say, "we made our case and we convinced him to see it our way." The average voter sees the need for new drilling as a mater of national self interest. President Obama's tack back towards the center on this issue isn't just about compensating for health care misery. It's cold hard politics.
We should be grateful that he's championed the 125 limit.

Anna Aldredge (guest)
CA:

After passing HCR, figuring that the People would all of a sudden come back to him, Obama now sees that the People were serious about not wanting it. His polls are still going down and his base is not supporting him. Now he had to come out with something to make him popular again, allowing the US to drill for oil. This is a shill as there are only certain places to drill and it will take time for permits, which more than likely will happen, if at all, after he's out of power.
But the Obama team had to pull a rabbit in order to regain his popularity. Unfortunately, Obama has shown his real self during the HCR debaucle, a Socialist/Marxist and now not only will Congress not support him, he has lost 80% of the Independents who supported him in his election. Even the Blacks are not happy with him as he has screwed them just as much as whites. The Blacks expected more from him, but now they see that he only used them. Obama is not black, he's not white and he's only out for himself.
Now, after Obama's announcement that we're going to be ablt to drill for oil, he's also lost the environmentalists. Let's see, the only supoort he has now is his cronies in the administration.

Jeremy Wright (guest)
ME:

I understand cynicism comes from experience, but do we really think every decision in Washington is made primarily from a political calculation? The proposal seems like common sense policy: in the long run we have to switch our primary energy consumption away from fossil fuels, but until that's technologically feasible we have to source traditional fuels to sustain economic growth.

Jim Jenkins (guest)
IA:

When well known democrats begin shedding crocodile tears for the republican party and its chairman, I think we can all assume their concern is for their own organization, and not the Republican.
The more the democrats wail about the ineffectiveness of the RNC chairman, the more persuaded I am that he is becoming increasingly effective and is finally, to a poll driven democrat party, has done some damage to that party which is now showing up in their polls.
If Steele were doing that badly, wouldn't democrat party operatives want him to stay in place, continuing to allegedly harm the Republican party instead of leaving?

Mark hannawa (guest)
NC:

As if he hasn't ruined this country enough, now we're talking about if he has any bite left. I will tell you that if America was able to travel back in time, Barack Hussein Obama would be back in the senate creating mischief on a much smaller scale. America did not need a transformation.... it needed a revival! A revival of the founding principals, and to bring pride back to a country so complicit. One good thing came out of all this power shift, which is why we are now talking about taking our country back from liberal progressives. Liberal progressives were like societal degenerative sleeper cell terrorists that needed to be outed, and addressed before they nudged us into a slow death. We now know the face of our anti-American movement. There is always a bright side to all things, and that being, to wake up and make things right again. The more the progressives and media defame the vast majority of citizenry in this country, the more emboldened we become to move forward with corrective measures and to restore our balance of powers. No one group of ideologues should have absolute power to infringe on another. When the tea partiers say "take our country back" they're saying... WE MISS YOU AMERICA, AND WE WANT YOU BACK AMERICA!!!

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

With all due respect to Dean Baker, the last thing this country needs is more Keynesian economics. Shifting the focus of consumerism and consumption from the private sector into the hands of government is not only irresponsible but disasterous. A perfect example of this is the stimulus bill... a massive amount of borrowed money spent with a pathetically small return. What few returns have been claimed are dubious at best (umm... jobs created in non-existent districts anyone?) What you are seeing in the public is effectively a revolt against historically failed Keynesian economics. Growth is always best created and managed in the private sector where overhead and the cost of doing business is a fraction of that of the government. Yes, Obama has maxed out - and what he has maxed out is peoples' patience. It's not that he doesn't know that, it's that he doesn't care. He's operating by the old adage that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, so he's intent on shoving through as much of his progressive agenda as possible - by hook or crook (as evidenced by the health care bill) - regardless of the political costs because he realizes that it's easier to pass his agenda than it is for his opponents to repeal it.

Chris Sells (guest)
AL:

Political capital limit is very flexible. One day here, next reappears. The President being maxed out yet remains unknown, difficult perhaps. I do for a fact know what is maxed and that is the countries credit limit. There is a storm on the horizon and if the goverment inability to tackle the growing debt problems continue, all other issues will become pointless in the long term.

Lee (MMBJack) McCarty (guest)
NV:

So do I understand that because the Blue Dogs that are among the 34 against passing Health Care Reform are crying about the coming election prospects in their Red States we are to believe that Obama will have little chance in Congress before the elections? And the Republicans are advising the Democrats to hide under a blanket so they can recover their shattered Party fiasco and somehow take Congress in November? This is a shocking question and article at Politico in the midst of the power and persistence evident in the President to make up for the dilly dally year loss of time (the GOP strategy to dupe him on HCR and cause a loss that turned to victory) and I am happy to see Mr. Frost, Mr. Jost, Mr. Dworkin, and Mr. West (no doubt others also) catch onto this for what it is - just a little sand in the wheel of reform and progress to make a distraction from the potential to actually regenerate the Democratic base enthusiasm - including the young who remain energized - and really keep a much larger majority than the GOP is aiming at amid other events within their Party that they are trying to hide under this same blanket of misinformation. Cap and Trade, Arms Control, jobs, and Wall Street-Banking Reform very overdue and needed,

Nick Wilson (guest)
TX:

Mr. Baker,
Keynesianism is inherently regressive because the long-term inflation resulting from the devaluation of currency pinches the poor the hardest. Keynesianism is about the perpetual artificial stimulation of inflation, which is almost always a bad thing for the lower class, whose wages don't rise fast enough to match the increased cost of living and who actually benefit in a downturning economy if natural deflation and market readjustment is allowed to take place. As tax increases kill jobs and spending cuts take away precious entitlements, there are no politically viable solutions to pay down the debt besides printing money, which can be done behind the scenes and without electoral consequences. While the rich and upper middle class can afford a decent amount of inflation (and might even benefit from it if they invest wisely), the poor only find it harder to afford their day-to-day expenses. It is disingenuous for Keynesian sycophants to argue that adding government debt on the national credit card does anything but cycle money around inefficiently and add expensive interest payments onto an impending financial disaster far worse than anything we've seen.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.